U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

FOR THE ALL ABOARD FLORIDA PASSENGER RAIL PROJECT

WEST PALM BEACH TO MIAMI, FLORIDA

JANUARY 2013 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

2 42

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 

2.0 Purpose and Need

3.0 Alternatives

3.1 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Further Analysis

A. Eliminated System Alternatives

B. Eliminated Station Alternatives

3.2 Alternatives Retained for Further Analysis

A. No-Build Alternative

B. System Alternative (Preferred Build System Alternative) 

C. Station and VMF Alternatives 

1. West Palm Beach Station Alternatives

North Option 

Central Option (Preferred Build Station Alternative) 

2. Fort Lauderdale Station Alternatives

North Option (Preferred Build Station Alternative) 

South Option 

3. Miami Station Alternatives

South At-Grade Option 

Central Elevated Option (Preferred Build Station Alternative) 

4. VMF

4.0 Rationale for Choosing the Selected Alternative

5.0 Summary of Environmental Impacts 

A. Air Quality

B. Water Quality 

C. Floodplains 

D. Wetlands 

E. Noise and Vibration 

F. Ecological Systems 

G. Threatened and Endangered Species 

H. Transportation 

1. Rail Transportation 

2. Regional Roadway Transportation 

3. Local Roadway Transportation 

4. Parking 

I. Demographics and Environmental Justice 

J. Barriers to Elderly and Handicapped 

K. Public Health and Safety 

L. Cultural Resources 

M. Section 4(f) and Recreational Resources 

N. Construction Impacts 

O. Potential Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 

6.0 Comments

7.0 Commitments

8.0 Conclusion

 

 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

3 42

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1 Letter of Concurrence; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), November 20, 2012

Exhibit 2 Letter of Concurrence, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), 

November 26, 2012

Exhibit 3 Letter of Concurrence; Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources, 

November 6, 2012

Exhibit 4 Public Comments

Part 1: Summary of Comments Received

Part 2: Copies of Comments from Citizens

Part 3: Copies of Comments from Elected Officials

Part 4: Copies of Comments from Agencies

All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

5 42

operates a freight rail service. Certain FECI affiliates own rights to develop and operate services within 

that corridor. For example, AAF-O has an easement granted by FECR whereby AAF-O may develop and 

operate the proposed passenger service within the FEC corridor between West Palm Beach and Miami. 

AAF-O will operate the proposed passenger rail service in coordination with FECR's continued freight 

service within the corridor.

AAF prepared an Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Statement (EA) for the proposed All 

Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida (Project). The Project 

area analyzed includes the FEC corridor between West Palm Beach and Miami, and adjacent areas 

within which the system, stations, and vehicle maintenance facility (VMF) have been proposed (Project 

Area). The EA addresses the potential effects of the proposed action to the environment within the 

Project area. 

The EA was reviewed, revised, and approved by FRA for public circulation and comment from October 

31, 2012 through December 3, 2012. FRA is making this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based 

on the information in the EA and considering public comments. The EA and FONSI have been prepared 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (NEPA); Section 4(f) 

of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. § 303(c)); and FRA’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999). 

FRA cooperated with AAF to develop the EA for the Project in connection with a potential future AAF 

filing with the FRA of an application for financial assistance through the FRA’s Railroad Rehabilitation 

and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program. FRA’s regulations on the conduct of environmental reviews 

in support of RRIF applications are found at 49 C.F.R. §260.35 and these are the foundation of FRA’s 

participation in this environmental review process. The conduct of an environmental review under 

NEPA is triggered by the presence of a major federal action with the potential for significant impacts on 

the human or natural environment. FRA’s review and decision on a potential RRIF application is the 

FRA’s potential federal connection to the Project. FRA is not aware of any other potential major federal 

action within the FRA’s jurisdiction for the Project. 

AAF has not as of this date submitted a RRIF application to the FRA and so no formal FRA action is 

pending at this time. AAF has requested and FRA has agreed to issue this FONSI completing this stage of 

the NEPA review process in advance of the receipt of an application, because the environmental review 

is complete and the EA adequately addresses and presents the environmental consequences of the 

proposed Project. 

The public record, including AAF filings before the Surface Transportation Board (STB), indicates that 

AAF has an interest in pursuing the development of passenger rail operations in a larger corridor from 

Miami to Orlando (see STB Docket Number FD_35680). FRA participated in the evaluation of the 

environmental impacts of the Project between Miami and West Palm Beach on the basis of a request 

from AAF that focused solely on the development of this portion of the corridor as an initial step. FRA 

has no role in the development of passenger rail service on the FEC corridor outside of the RRIF program 

and no role in deciding on the appropriate scope of the project that AAF might wish to pursue. A private 

sector concern can limit its interest to an initial segment of a potentially larger corridor so long as the 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

6 42

initial proposal involves logical termini and has independent utility. FRA has concluded that the 

proposed Project has logical termini and independent utility. Of course, neither the EA nor this FONSI 

address in any way the environmental impacts associated with development of passenger rail in the 

larger corridor between Miami and Orlando or how those impacts might appropriately be identified and 

evaluated should a federal approval or funding role through the FRA be identified in the future. AAF will 

be required to meet all the appropriate environmental review requirements for the larger corridor as a 

whole and FRA will take appropriate action to comply with NEPA. 

2.0 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Project is to provide intercity passenger rail service that addresses South Florida’s 

current and future needs to enhance the transportation system by providing a transportation alternative 

for Floridians and tourists, supporting economic development, creating jobs, and improving air quality.

• There is a need to enhance public safety and reduce highway congestion by developing 

additional transportation alternatives for the region. In June 2010, Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT) prepared the I-95 Transportation Alternatives Study, in consultation with 

the Department of Law Enforcement, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Division 

of Emergency Management, the Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development, and 

affected metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and regional planning councils located 

along the corridor.1 The study, which provides an assessment of concerns and proposed 

solutions related to I-95, found that “I-95 is overwhelmed with traffic demand”2 and that 

“[t]ravel within specific urban areas along the I-95 corridor is highly congested in peak travel 

periods due to single driver automobile use.”3 This study concluded that “[p]assenger rail 

service represents a mobility option to serve Florida’s East Coast along the I-95 corridor,” with 

multiple benefits including the reduction of “fossil fuel use and greenhouse gases (GHGs); job 

creation and economic development around station locations; and, better connectivity between 

northern and southern sections of Florida.”4 Further, the study determined that a need exists 

for improvements to the existing transportation system, stating that:

“The transportation analysis illustrates the need for alternative transportation options 

be available by the 2035 planning horizon to accommodate the growing demand. I-95, 

even at build-out, will not be operating at acceptable levels and travel demand model 

results imply parallel facilities may be facing a similar outlook. Alternative transportation 

 

1 For the complete report, see http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/corridor/corridor%20study/I95%20Transportation%20Alternatives%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

2 Id., at 3.

3 Id., at 22.

4 Id., at 22
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

7 42

routes and modal choices must become readily available to ensure safe and efficient 

movement of passenger and freight travel.”5

Significant roadway expansion along the Interstate 95 (I-95) corridor is unlikely due to the 

potential for a large number of displacements and other substantial environmental impacts. As 

such, there is a need to consider alternate transportation modes that expand overall regional 

capacity. The proposed Project will provide an additional transportation alternative that 

addresses highway congestion and current and future travel demand between major South 

Florida cities, thereby reducing highway maintenance costs and accident rates.

• There is a need for connectivity between the historic downtowns of West Palm Beach Palm, Fort 

Lauderdale, and Miami that will support additional real estate development in downtown areas. 

While mass transit is being enhanced within each of the three cities, there is no limited stop

alternative transportation that can compete with auto travel between the downtown areas of 

West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. The City of West Palm Beach has plans to both 

improve mass transit in the city and to create a connection between Clematis Street 

(downtown’s main street) and the shopping and entertainment venue known as CityPlace. The 

objectives of the City of Fort Lauderdale and Broward County likewise include an innovative 

transit system at their core as a means of creating sustainable development and more livable 

communities. In addition, Miami’s Downtown Development Authority completed the 2025 

Downtown Miami Master Plan in October of 2009 (Master Plan). The Master Plan is organized 

by five overarching goals, which includes Goal 5, “Promote Transit and Regional Connectivity,” 

that states: 

“Uncomplicated and non-problematic access to Downtown Miami is critical to its 

economic and social strength. Access strategies should focus on the continuing 

development of multiple and intermodal transportation options that ease the ability to 

get to and from downtown, as well as the ability to move quickly and easily throughout 

the downtown.”

The proposed service can be enhanced with stations located on downtown sites adjacent to the 

FEC corridor in West Palm, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. Complementary to the service, 

connectivity between the cities can be enhanced and development can be fostered in the urban 

cores to serve the growing public interest in pursuing rail options to meet regional mobility 

needs, all without disturbing environmentally sensitive areas of South Florida.

• There is a need to support economic development and create jobs. The Comprehensive Plan of 

the City of West Palm Beach establishes the Downtown Master Plan (DMP) for the City, which 

includes guidance for uses for the properties within the City’s downtown areas.6 Specifically, 

Policy 1.1.1.H of the DMP provides that the Quadrille Business District (QBD) includes “greatest 

 

5 Id., at 6.

6 For complete plan, see http://wpb.org/plan/pdf/PBCaseNo1580_CCP.pdf. 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

8 42

potential density of development and tallest building heights in the Downtown,” and states that 

the intent of the DMP is “to create an activity center that connects the retail areas at CityPlace 

and Clematis Street retail corridor.”7

 

The unemployment rates in Florida have historically exceeded the national average. The Florida 

Department of Economic Opportunity published the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate 

was 8.1 percent in November 2012.8 The U.S. unemployment rate was 7.7 percent the same 

month.9 The development of this Project is expected to create more than 1,200 direct, nonrecurring construction jobs and hundreds of direct permanent jobs from rail operations and 

other indirect jobs, all while spurring economic development by creating new transit oriented 

community development opportunities along the corridor. 

The Project is expected to generate new revenue for the State and local governments by 

creating opportunities for increasing property values and to generate new tax revenues,

including growth in real estate taxes, corporate income taxes and sales taxes, all of which may 

be utilized to address community-specific needs (e.g. schools, parks, public works, police and 

fire protection). 

• There is a need to improve air quality. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection in 

its Air Monitoring Report of 2011 stated, “Florida is fortunate to experience good overall air 

quality. However, the presence of air pollutants can pose a threat to clean air. Air pollution is 

generated by our modern day-to-day activities like driving and using electricity. Our southern 

location bound by the Gulf Coast on the western shore and the Atlantic Ocean on the eastern 

shore means that we need to be concerned about pollutants transported in and out of Florida as 

well as home grown air pollutants impacting the air we breathe.” 

The counties included within the Project Area have made commitments to the reduction of 

greenhouse gas emissions. For example, Palm Beach County on its website states that it has 

developed an air program “responsible for assuring good air quality for the community through 

many regulatory and non-regulatory programs,” noting that clean air “is a most important 

natural resource,” and that air pollution “is produced from many human activities, primarily 

from combustion of fossil fuel for transportation and power generation.”10 Broward County 

notes on its website that the reduction of “greenhouse gas emissions is an important 

component to Broward County’s overall commitment to a healthy, sustainable environment. 

Broward County is already committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from County 

operations to 7 percent below 1997 levels by the year 2015.”11 Similarly, the Maimi-Dade 

 

7 Id, at 16-6.

8 For the complete press release, see http://lmsresources.labormarketinfo.com/library/press/release.pdf.

9 Id., at 1.

10 For more information on Palm Beach County’s commitment to air quality, see http://www.pbchd.com/env/airqual/env_air_quality.html. 

11 For more information on Broward County’s Climate Change Task Force, see 

http://www.broward.org/NATURALRESOURCES/CLIMATECHANGE/Pages/Mission.aspx. 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

9 42

County Board of County Commissioners has recognized the importance of air quality and has 

made “serious commitments to prepare the County for a sustainable future,” including its 

agreement “to pursue the regional goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent 

from 2008 levels by 2050.”12

By providing an efficient and attractive alternative to automobile travel, passenger rail travel will 

reduce congestion on South Florida’s highways, thereby reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions in the region because the emission reductions due to the decrease in regional vehicle 

miles travelled (VMTs) are higher than the relatively low incremental emissions expected as a 

result of the restoration of passenger trains to the FEC Corridor. 

3.0 Alternatives

The EA evaluated alternatives for the proposed Project under two titles including: (1) “system” 

alternatives for the railway corridor between stations; and (2) “station” alternatives for locating stations 

(and ancillary development) in West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. Alternatives were 

considered in light of evaluation criteria developed by AAF to identify options that satisfied the purpose 

and need of the Project, including the need for proximity to the FEC corridor and downtown central 

business districts (CBD); the compatibility of existing land use patterns in the affected areas; the 

feasibility of Project components; and the cost and scheduling implications of each option. For example, 

to operate safely and efficiently, all station alternatives would need to be situated on tangent track at

sites that accommodate the development of high-level platforms at least 800 feet long and

approximately 50 inches high above the top of the rail to comply with level boarding requirements of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (PL 110-325). Further, the Miami station would need to 

serve as a terminus where train servicing would be performed. Alternatives in Miami would, therefore, 

need to accommodate four platform tracks, 1,000 foot platforms, and additional service platforms.

Several alternatives were considered and dismissed from further consideration for failing to meet the 

Project’s purpose, need, goals, and objectives. The alternatives that were advanced for evaluation in 

the EA include: one alternative for study for the system, one for the Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF), 

and two potential station alternatives were identified for further evaluation in each of the proposed 

station locations - West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. Following analysis, AAF identified a 

recommended alternative for a detailed study for the system (the “Preferred Build System Alternative”), 

as well as each station location (each, the “Preferred Build Station Alternative”) and the VMF. 

The EA presented the recommended alternative for the proposed Project, including the Preferred Build 

System Alternative and the Preferred Build Station Alternatives (collectively, the “Preferred Build Project 

Alternative” or “Preferred Alternative”). As required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (NEPA), Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. § 303(c)) 

and FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999), the EA also 

 

12 For more information on the Miami-Dade County GreenPrint: Our Design for a Sustainable Future, see 

http://www.miamidade.gov/greenprint/. 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

10 42

considered the “no-build” alternative that represents no change from current conditions for the system 

and proposed station locations beyond those that have been currently planned and funded.

13 

3.1 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Further Analysis

A. Eliminated System Alternatives: The following system alternatives14 were considered but 

eliminated as not feasible or reasonable to meet the Project’s purpose and need:

• Full separation of freight and passenger rail on the same at-grade corridor: This alternative, 

requiring the physical separation of passenger and freight rail on the same corridor, was 

considered and discarded as not feasible due to the extensive new track work, bridges, grade 

crossing widths, communication systems, and right-of-way that would be required. A 

completely separate system is estimated to cost approximately $2.5 billion, exclusive of right of 

way costs and impacts, which makes this alternative unreasonable for AAF to pursue. The 

proposed shared-use contemplated within the Preferred Build System Alternative achieves the 

Project’s purpose and need at a lower cost, approximately $350 million, and with fewer 

environmental consequences. 

• Grade-separated system: This alternative was considered, but not advanced for further 

evaluation due to its potential for significant environmental impacts, increased costs, and 

delays. A fully grade-separated system would be required if the Project would include plans for 

train travel at speeds faster than 110 mph. The proposed Project does not require such speeds 

to achieve the Project’s purpose and need. Therefore, the economies of an at-grade shared-use 

system as contemplated with the Preferred Build System Alternative outweigh any benefits that 

might be achieved with a fully grade-separated system. A fully grade-separated system is 

estimated to cost more than $4 billion. Further, the environmental impacts of a fully-elevated 

system would be extensive in urban centers and would require more invasive construction work 

than the work required for the restoration of a second track within the existing FEC corridor. 

B. Eliminated Station Alternatives: The following station sites were considered, but eliminated from 

further study for failing to meet the Project’s purpose and need and essential criteria of proximity, 

compatibility, feasibility and/or connectivity:

• West Palm Beach South Option: Constructing an 800-foot long high-level platform close to the 

City’s CBD would block the intersection at Okeechobee Boulevard (a primary east-west arterial 

route from the regional highway network) or Hibiscus Street (a key access road for the City Place 

retail district). These streets were identified as major thoroughfares. The blockage of these 

roads could impact local circulation and access to existing properties in the area. Grade 

 

13 See 40 CFR Section 1502.14(d) (requiring that any analysis of alternatives in an EA "include the alternative of No-Build."). 

14 Alignment alternatives that bypass downtown areas were also eliminated from review because such approaches would fail to meet the 

Project’s purpose and need, including the need for connectivity to the downtown areas of key station destinations. These alternatives would 

also require the acquisition of extensive new railroad right-of-way, which would make these alternatives cost-prohibitive for cons
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

11 42

separating these two streets would also have the potential to impact access to adjacent 

properties. 

• Miami North At-Grade Option: Siting an at-grade terminal station north of Fifth Street was 

considered to address the existing Metromover alignment. This option would require the 

passenger tracks to share the 100-foot wide right-of-way on the lead track to Port Miami used 

by the FECI affiliate, FECR, on the north side of Eighth Street while preserving the track 

connection to the port. Accommodating 1,000-foot long high-level platforms on tangent track 

within this property was deemed unreasonable because the required system and station 

infrastructure could not be located within the site. This option would require significant 

acquisition of additional land for the right-of-way and the station, which would be costprohibitive for this Project. 

• Miami North Elevated Option. Siting an elevated terminal station north of Fifth Street, rather 

than an at-grade condition, was found to be technically infeasible and unreasonable due to the 

significant increases in costs, delays, and risks associated with construction.

Accommodating 1,000-foot long, elevated platforms on tangent track within this property was 

not feasible because the necessary height could not be achieved at this location while remaining

at-grade underneath the Dolphin Expressway (I-395) overpass, which extends to a six-lane 

causeway that connects Downtown Miami and South Beach via Biscayne Bay. The distance 

between I-395 and the location where the 1,000 foot-long, high-level platform would need to be 

located was not sufficient to accommodate the 3% incline for an elevated viaduct structure 

approximately 45 feet above grade. This option would, therefore, be unreasonable in that it 

would require an incline that would increase the costs, delays and risks of construction and 

operation. 

• Miami Below-Grade Option. An underground scheme was explored but dismissed primarily due 

to constructability and cost challenges related to the site’s high water table and buried utilities.

3.2 Alternatives Retained for Further Analysis

The No-Build Alternative was analyzed, along with the system alternative, six station alternatives, and an 

alternative retained for further consideration as the VMF in Fort Lauderdale. The following evaluation 

criteria were established for the analysis of each potential viable station alternatives: 

Criteria Issues Analyzed

Right-of-way acquisition Whether any significant property acquisitions would be required for 

the right-of-way

Roadway blockage and/or atgrade crossing closuresWhether any street blockage or at-grade crossing closures to 

accommodate the system or proposed platforms would be required 

and, if so, whether (a) any such affected street would be a local street 

or a major state or federal thoroughfare, (b) the anticipated action 

would impact local circulation adversely, (c) alternate routes were 

located in close proximity to the proposed action so as to result in 

minimal changes to the existing traffic patterns and avoid no-
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

12 42

Criteria Issues Analyzed

outlet/dead-end conditions and (d) access to existing properties 

would be negatively affected by the proposed action

Vehicular traffic impact Whether local vehicular traffic would be negatively impacted

Local government plan 

consistency

Whether the proposed development was consistent with local 

governmental plans

Local government support Whether the proposed development was supported by local 

governments, including affected cities, counties and metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPOs)

Ecologically sensitive 

areas/wetlands

Whether ecologically-sensitive areas/wetlands would be impacted

Floodplains 100-yr Whether the alternative would impact the function of the 100-year 

floodplain

Historic Properties Whether the alternative was within the vicinity of historic properties 

and, if so, whether negative impacts were expected

Noise impacts Whether the alternative would result in increased noise impacts

Vibration impacts Whether the alternative would result in increased vibration impacts

Contamination Whether the alternative would result in major soil disturbance 

activities resulting in negative impacts that could not be addressed 

through best management practices.

Impact to Environmental Justice 

populations

Whether the alternative would result in negative environmental 

justice impacts.

Parking impacts Whether the alternative would result in negative parking impacts.

Engineering complexity Whether the alternative would require complex design and/or 

construction work that would affect the feasibility of the proposal. 

 

A. No-Build Alternative: The No-Build Alternative involves no changes to the transportation facilities 

within the FEC corridor beyond those that have already been planned and funded. Existing freight 

operations and facilities used by FECR would be maintained. Specifically, the No-Build Alternative

would maintain FECR’s operations as a freight provider within the FEC corridor assuming an annual 

growth in operations of approximately 5%-7% between today and 2016 due to current FECR projects 

at Port Miami and Port Everglades, and an organic growth of 3% per year after 2016. The No-Build 

Alternative would include future planned and funded roadway, transit, air, and other intermodal 

improvements within the Project Area. As such, the No Build Alternative is expected to result in 

increased traffic congestion and automobile dependence for long commutes because it does not 

provide an alternative mode of transportation to the use of personal vehicles, thereby further 

contributing to GHG emissions that would not promote improved air quality. 

B. System Alternative (Preferred Build System Alternative): The system alternative analyzed includes 

the addition of, and improvement to, existing tracks and safety equipment on the FEC corridor. The 

Project would begin at FECR milepost (MP) 299.5, just north of the proposed West Palm Beach 

Station sites and would end at MP 365.5 at the Miami Station. The total system length is 66 miles, 

which includes 48 miles of existing single mainline track, and 18 miles of existing second track 

sidings. This alternative, identified as the Preferred Build System Alternative, would return the 

existing FEC corridor to its prior dual-track system, by constructing approximately 48 miles of new 

second mainline track on the FEC corridor. Additionally, this alternative includes the rehabilitation 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

13 42

of 8.3 miles of existing track on the FEC corridor. The double-track will allow for the development 

and re-introduction of passenger service between the historic downtowns of West Palm Beach, Fort 

Lauderdale and Miami in Southeast Florida. Track infrastructure improvements are planned to be 

completed within the existing right-of-way (i.e. no right-of-way acquisition is anticipated for the 

Preferred Build System Alternative). Three existing bridge structures will have an additional second 

mainline track added to the existing deck, but no improvements to the structure’s footprint will 

need to be made and no work would be required directly within waterbodies and/or waterways. 

Seven existing bridges will remain single track and will not be expanded to accommodate two tracks

under this Project. 

C. Station and VMF Alternatives: Station alternatives are defined as those potential locations for 

developing stations and ancillary development needed to support the Project in West Palm Beach, 

Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. Two sites in West Palm Beach were considered: the North Option and 

the Central Option. Two sites were considered for Fort Lauderdale: the North Option and the South 

Option. In Miami, after eliminating three possible station alternatives that were not feasible, two 

alternatives were found to be feasible and were analyzed: the Central Option and the South Option. 

For the VMF, one site was considered, which is a facility is owned by FECR known as “Andrews Yard” 

that has adequate space to accommodate the passenger trains for maintenance. The facility has 

existing track connections to the mainline, and parking and utilities to support maintenance facility 

operations. Further, given FECR’s plans to shift its intermodal operations from this site to a new

location being constructed at Port Everglades, the facility will be available for maintenance of 

passenger trains. No other locations exist that provide these economic, ownership, operational and 

availability advantages. Therefore, the analyzed site was identified as the only reasonable

alternative for locating the VMF that would serve the purpose and need of the Project.

1. West Palm Beach 

Station Alternatives

West Palm Beach 

North Option: The 

AAF station would be 

located in the 

northern portion of 

downtown, roughly 

between Third and 

Seventh Streets 

proximate to the 15th

Judicial Circuit 

Courthouse Complex, 

County Courthouse, 

County 

Administration 

Building and City Hall 

on property that 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

14 42

would need to be acquired from private property owners. The station’s 800-foot long, 35-foot 

wide high-level platform would be located north of Third Street. The North Option alternative 

requires the platform to be on a tangent track north of the existing mainline curve. No right-ofway acquisition is anticipated for the track improvements or the station constructed in this 

alternative. While this alternative is farthest from the CBD it is in close proximity to government 

buildings, which aligns with the City’s desire to focus on economic development in the northern 

part of downtown West Palm Beach. This site would take advantage of an uninterrupted stretch 

of the FEC corridor without the need for at-grade crossing closures, although it would block 

access to NW 7th Street, which is not desirable because the City of West Palm Beach has 

identified NW 7th Street, a major roadway, for a circulation improvement study and the 

development of the station at this location would possibly preclude plans that may be 

developed by the City following that study. 

West Palm Beach Central Option (Preferred Build Station Alternative): The AAF station would 

be located roughly between Clematis Street and Fern Street. The two-story station building 

would be located to the west side of the FEC corridor on private property fronting Evernia Street 

that is currently leased by an FECI affiliate that has the right to purchase the land. The north 

edge of the 35-foot wide center-island platform would commence just south of Clematis Street 

and end north of Fern Street. The high-level platform would physically block the intersections at 

Datura and Evernia Streets, thus two at-grade crossing closures would be required due to the 

short block grid. 

This site is attractive due to its proximity to City Hall, the County Courthouse, and County 

Administration. It would serve as a pedestrian and activity link between the urban retail 

corridor of Clematis Street and the mixed use district of CityPlace and the CBD. Although it 

requires the closure of two at-grade crossings, this site location was identified as the Preferred 

Build Station Alternative based on the application of the evaluation criteria. This West Palm 

Beach Central Option satisfied all evaluation criteria, including the factors considered regarding 

right-of-way acquisition, crossing closures, vehicular traffic impacts, local development plan 

consistency, local government support, and lack of significant adverse impacts to ecologically 

sensitive areas, floodplains, historic properties, noise, vibration, contamination, sensitive 

communities and parking. The criterion regarding crossing closures was satisfied by this Central 

Option because the crossing closures proposed to accommodate the system or proposed 

platforms would be at local streets and would not impact local circulation significantly as there 

are alternate routes located in close proximity to the proposed closures so as to result in 

minimal changes to the existing traffic patterns. Further, access to existing properties would not 

be affected by the proposed crossing closures. In addition, this location satisfies the criterion 

regarding the feasibility of design in that it accommodates the center-island platform design, 

which is preferred for operational and safety reasons. Access to the passenger platform is 

possible only by grade-separated means (via escalators/elevators, stairs to and from a 

controlled-access, air-conditioned waiting area). Further, this design ensures that ticketed 

passengers are always located on the correct platform, even if scheduling changes are made to 

inbound or outbound trains. Electronic signage will clearly indicate the train number and its 

direction and destination. 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

15 42

2. Fort Lauderdale Station Alternatives

Fort Lauderdale North Option (Preferred Build Station Alternative): The station’s 800-foot long, 

35-foot wide platform would be located north of Broward Boulevard and south of NW Fourth 

Street on property owned by Broward County, with which AAF would need to reach an 

agreement regarding the proposed use of the land. The high-level platform would require the 

at-grade crossing closure at NW Second Street. The station would extend to the east side of the 

FEC corridor onto the existing Broward Transit Center property bounded by Broward Avenue, 

NW First Avenue and NW Second Street. This alternative was identified as the Preferred Build 

Station Alternative based on the application of the evaluation criteria. The Fort Lauderdale 

North Option satisfied all evaluation criteria, including the factors considered regarding right-ofway acquisition, crossing closures, vehicular traffic impacts, local development plan consistency, 

local government support, and lack of significant adverse impacts to ecologically sensitive areas, 

floodplains, historic properties, noise, vibration, contamination, sensitive communities and 

parking. The criterion regarding crossing closures was satisfied because the at-grade crossing 

closures proposed to accommodate the system or proposed platforms would affect local streets 

and would not impact local circulation significantly as there are alternate routes located in close 

proximity to the proposed closures so as to result in minimal changes to the existing traffic 

patterns. Further, this location satisfies the criterion regarding feasibility of design in that this 

site accommodates a center-island design for the platform, which is preferred for the reasons 

cited above. 

Fort Lauderdale 

South Option: The 

AAF station would be 

located south of 

Broward Boulevard 

and north of the 

existing railroad 

bridge over the New 

River. The station 

would extend to the 

east side of the FEC 

corridor onto the 

privately controlled 

Las Olas Riverfront 

property that would 

need to be acquired 

from private property 

owners. Eminent 

domain issues are not 

anticipated. All 

Aboard Florida plans 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

16 42

to acquire property that is needed for station development. It is assumed that a mutually 

acceptable deal is likely to be negotiated for the acquisition of property needed for the 

development of the stations, including this site, should it be determined necessary. This site is 

in close proximity to the existing public esplanade along the river. No track work would be 

undertaken within 100 feet of the existing bridge and the existing at-grade pedestrian crossing 

across the tracks would be preserved. To tie into the existing track alignment over the river 

crossing, the station would employ a side platform configuration in lieu of the preferred centerisland platform described for the Fort Lauderdale-North Option.15 In addition, the 800-foot long 

high-level platforms would result in the possible blockage and/or at-grade crossing closure of 

one major intersection: either Broward Boulevard or SW Second Street. Closing the at-grade 

crossing at Broward Boulevard would be problematic because it is a major connector to I-95 and 

the principle feeder to the proposed Fort Lauderdale station. Closing the at-grade crossing at 

SW Second Street would also be problematic because it connects the CBD east of the FEC 

corridor to important sites on the west of the FEC corridor, including the Downtown Ft. 

Lauderdale Historic District and the Broward Center for the Performing Arts. 

3. Miami Station Alternatives

Miami South AtGrade Option: This 

station alternative is 

an at-grade option on 

property owned by an 

FECI affiliate. At the 

north end, two 

mainline tracks would 

pass at-grade under 

the Dolphin 

Expressway (I-395) 

overpass. Beyond the 

overpass, the single 

lead track to Port 

Miami would remain 

in service, diverging 

from the mainline at 

NW Eighth Street 

heading eastward

into the port. The 

passenger track 

 

15 See foregoing description of the benefits of the center-island platform design. By contrast, at stations with side platforms, passengers often 

need to transfer from a platform on one side of the tracks to a platform on the other side of the tracks if a dispatching decision is made for an 

un-scheduled rerouting of a train from one track to the other as it approaches a station with side platforms. This situation can result in 

passengers taking risks by crossing mainline tracks at unsafe locations. 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

17 42

arrangement would continue south and fan out to four tracks between NW Eighth and NW Fifth 

Streets, allowing for platforms south of NW Fifth Street. 

The Miami South At-Grade Option layout provides a combination of side and center-island 

platforms. All four tracks would be accessed also by a low-level service platform. The 1,000-foot 

long platforms would be located between NW Fifth Street (which would remain open) and Third 

Street (where the at-grade crossing would need to be closed). This at-grade crossing closure is 

challenging because it would result in dead-end conditions from both directions. Further, the 

entire track and station platform footprint would realize its full width at the south edge of NW

Fifth Street. Four tracks would cross NW Sixth and NW Fifth Streets at-grade. This 4-track-wide 

crossing is unfavorable because it would present greater safety risks to pedestrians and vehicles 

along NW Sixth and NW Fifth Streets, which are two of the more significant downtown 

connectors to I-95 that provide access to Port Miami and the American Airlines Arena, among 

other local attractions and downtown properties. This alternative would not alter the existing 

Overtown Metrorail Station or existing Government Center Metrorail and Metromover Stations. 

The existing Metromover station at NE Fifth Street would also be maintained. However, it 

would not be possible to locate four passenger rail tracks and platforms under the existing 

Metromover alignment without altering the existing pier spacing; hence, the Metromover span 

through the property would need to be rebuilt, adding cost and risks of delays and disruptions 

to Metromover service. 

Miami Central Elevated Option (Preferred Build Station Alternative): This elevated option 

layout on property owned by an FECI affiliate would have the same passenger and service 

platform configuration as the at-grade alternative described for the South At-Grade Option, 

except that the station platform footprint would be accommodated entirely on an elevated 

viaduct structure approximately 45 feet above grade. This alternative shifts the platform closer 

toward the northern portion of the property. Unlike the previous alternative, the two station 

lead tracks would commence a maximum 3% incline onto a viaduct immediately south of the 

Dolphin Expressway (I-395) overpass. The existing at-grade crossings at NW Eleventh and NW 

Tenth Streets would be eliminated due to the climbing passenger tracks; these streets would 

become blocked by a retaining wall. The at-grade crossing closures at NW Eleventh and NW 

Tenth Streets affect local streets rather than major state or federal thoroughfares. At each such 

location, the availability of alternative routes in close proximity to the proposed closures will 

avoid no-outlet (a.k.a., dead-end) conditions. Additionally, access to existing properties will not 

be prevented by the proposed crossing closures. By NW Ninth Street the elevated passenger 

tracks approaching the station would transition from retained embankment to viaduct 

structure. A minimum clearance of 23’-6” above the top of the rail would be maintained as the 

port lead track passes under the elevated Station Lead tracks. After the two station lead tracks 

fan out into four tracks, the 1,000-foot long platform zone would commence just south of NW 

Seventh Street and end just south of NW Fourth Street. The entire track and station platform 

footprint would pass over NW Eighth Street, the port lead, NW Sixth Street, NW Fifth Street, and 

the Metromover. This alternative would not alter the major through streets of NW Eighth, NW 

Sixth and NW Fifth Streets, the existing Overtown Metrorail Station or existing Government 

Center Metrorail and Metromover Stations. The AAF station would have multiple points of 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

18 42

pedestrian access. The headhouse’s primary entry would front NW First Avenue opposite the 

Federal Courthouse. Parking would be provided on site. Specifically, a three to four story 

building of passenger-oriented functions and retail would create a continuous street wall 

extending to the north, and structured parking for retail uses would be concealed behind the 

building, under the tracks and platforms. Mixed-use development would be situated 

immediately south of the station headhouse. This alternative was identified as the Preferred 

Build Station Alternative based on the application of the evaluation criteria. The Miami Central 

Elevated Option satisfied all evaluation criteria, including the factors considered regarding rightof-way acquisition, crossing closures, vehicular traffic impacts, local development plan 

consistency, local government support, and lack of significant adverse impacts to ecologically 

sensitive areas, floodplains, historic properties, noise, vibration, contamination, sensitive 

communities and parking. The criterion regarding crossing closures was satisfied because the 

at-grade crossing closures proposed to accommodate the system or proposed platforms would 

affect local streets, would not impact local circulation significantly as alternate routes are 

located in close proximity to the proposed crossing closures so as to result in minimal changes to 

the existing traffic patterns. Further, this location satisfies the criterion regarding the feasibility 

of design in that this site accommodates the design for the platform that is required for the 

Miami location.

4. Vehicle Maintenance Facility (Preferred Build Station Alternative): 

For the reasons cited in 3.2 above, the use of the location known as the “Andrews Yard” in Fort 

Lauderdale was analyzed in the EA as the only feasible alternative considered for the Vehicle 

Maintenance Facility (VMF) for the Project. This site houses FECR’s ramp terminal facility 

located on Andrews Avenue and features a 2010 intermodal lift-count of over 90,000 lifts. FECR 

also operates a drayage operation out of this facility. Existing land-use and zoning in the area is 

commercial/industrial in nature. Freight vehicle maintenance does not take place at this 

location. Historically, only intermodal operations have taken place at this location. These 

intermodal operations would be shifted to the FEC Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) 

currently being constructed at Port Everglades and assumed as part of the No Build 

Alternative. Four AAF trainsets could, therefore, be serviced daily at this site as AAF’s VMF. As 

such, this site was identified as the Preferred Build Station Alternative. Maintenance operations 

would occur primarily at night. Through these proposed operations, there will be three train 

moves added to the total train traffic in the morning, and three in the afternoon, when the 

trains return to the site for servicing during the night. However, these AAF train moves into and 

out of this Preferred Build Station Alternative would not disrupt or otherwise impact overall 

freight traffic on the line. 

4.0 Reasons for Choosing the Selected Alternative

FRA has chosen the Preferred Build Project Alternative as the selected alternative for the Project 

(Selected Alternative) in consultation with AAF because the Preferred Build Project Alternative best 

meets the purpose and need of the Project, returns passenger rail service to a portion of the FEC 

corridor, limits impacts to areas with cultural or natural resources, reduces the need for major highway 

transportation improvements, reduces regional vehicular congestion, increases inter-city connectivity 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

19 42

and mobility, and supports the economic development goals of the cities of West Pam Beach, Fort 

Lauderdale and Miami. The Selected Alternative also has the potential to improve air quality in the 

region by diverting vehicles from the roads and highways in South Florida between West Palm Beach 

and Miami. Further, the Selected Alternative involves the restoration of railway infrastructure within an 

existing right-of-way, thus requiring minimal construction impacts compared to a “green-field” project. 

5.0 Summary of Environmental Impacts

This FONSI focuses only on those resources that have a reasonable likelihood to be affected by the 

proposed action. The following potential impact areas are not located within the Project Area or would 

otherwise not be affected by the Project and, therefore, are not affected by the Selected Alternative: 

waterbodies, waterways, navigation, special designations, essential fish habitat, coastal zones, land use, 

municipal services (including sanitary sewer systems and solid waste disposal systems), energy 

resources, and aesthetics. Thus, these resources are not discussed in this FONSI. 

A. Air Quality: Projected emission estimates of the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) criteria pollutants related to the new passenger trains, freight trains, and on-road VMT 

reductions were developed to assess the potential impact of passenger trains emissions resulting 

from the Selected Alternative (as defined in Section 4.0 above). While the project area is in 

attainment for NAAQS pollutants, the analysis was completed to confirm that the Project would not 

cause any exceedence of the standards. Further, in accordance with FDOT’s guidelines, project-level 

impact analyses were performed through a carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot screening method 

employed at proposed station location road intersections and rail road crossings, where vehicle 

congestion may happen. The analyses were performed for the existing conditions (2012), the 

opening year (2015), and the build-out year (2035). 

The analysis of the Selected Alternative includes those improvements to the existing FEC corridor 

related to the restoration of passenger service within the existing ROW and includes the addition of, 

and improvement to, existing tracks and safety equipment beginning at MP 299.5 and ending at MP 

365.5, with a total system length of 66 miles including 49.2 miles of new track and the rehabilitation 

of 8.3 miles of existing track. 

Based on that analysis, the Selected Alternative would provide a net regional air quality benefit as 

compared to the current conditions. Operation of the Selected Alternative would reduce regional 

criteria pollutants, mobile source air toxics (MSATs), and GHG emissions because motor vehicle 

emissions would decrease in the region based upon the reduction of VMTs. By 2030, the Selected 

Alternative would reduce regional VMT by 51,345,672.16 

Table 3-1.1 of the EA presents the ridership and vehicle diversion, and associated reduction in VMT, 

expected as a result of the Selected Alternative for years 2018 and 2030. Further, Tables 3-1.2, 3-

1.3, 3-1.4, and 3-1.5 present the estimated emissions of criteria pollutants in each of the three 

 

16 See Table 3-1.1, Ridership and Vehicle Diversion by Station Pair. FEC, 2012.
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

20 42

counties affected by the Selected Alternative for the freight trains, passenger trains, switch 

locomotives, and on-road VMT reductions, respectively, Table 3-1.6 presents a summary that shows 

the total regional criteria pollutant emissions in the three counties and the difference between the 

emissions due to VMT decrease and those due to the passenger trains (e.g., the estimated VMT 

reduction, the effects of that VMT reduction estimated for emissions reductions and the “offset” in 

this emission reduction that will be caused by the passenger train emissions through operation). As 

shown in that table, the incremental emissions of the passenger trains in 2015 and 2030 are lower 

than those of the freight trains for the existing conditions in 2012, as well as the No-Build 

Alternative, and the opening year of 2015. Furthermore, that table shows that the emission 

reductions due to the decrease in regional VMTs are higher than the relatively low incremental 

increase due to the passenger trains. Therefore, the Selected Alternative would potentially improve 

the air quality in the region by diverting vehicles from the roads and highways in South Florida 

between West Palm Beach and Miami.

The Selected Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts on current or future air quality 

standards and will not lead to the establishment of an EPA NAAQS non-attainment area. 

B. Water Quality: Analysis of water quality includes surface waters, sole source aquifers, and well-field 

protection zones. The Selected Alternative will not increase the existing impervious surface area or 

alter the existing drainage system because it will utilize an existing rail corridor with track bed in 

place for two rail lines. Further, the Selected Alternative would not be expected to impact off-site 

drainage systems or water resources in light of the proposed use of on-site drainage improvements 

at all station alternatives. The Selected Alternative will include, at a minimum, on-site water quality 

treatment and best management practices as required by the South Florida Water Management 

District (SFWMD) (Chap. 40A though E, -4, -40,-42, and/or -44). Any temporary impacts resulting 

from construction of the Selected Alternative would cease when construction was completed and 

would be minimized by best management practices as required by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP) via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Program.17 The Project will be designed to meet these additional water quality standards in order to 

secure the necessary permits from SFWMD and FDEP. 

The Selected Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality. Further, any 

potential temporary impacts to water quality will be avoided and/or minimized through the 

foregoing best management practices and permitting requirements. 

C. Floodplains: The proposed system improvements on the mainline would occur within the FEC 

corridor at existing flood elevations. Therefore, although this Selected Alternative could involve 

work within the horizontal limits of the 100-year floodplain in areas throughout the FEC corridor, no 

work would be performed below the 100-year flood elevation and, as a result, this Selected 

Alternative would not encroach upon the base floodplain and complies with Executive Order 11988. 

Similarly, any modifications to drainage structures included in the Selected Alternative would result 

 

17 See State of Florida Erosion & Sediment Control – Designer & Reviewer Manual, 2007.
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

21 42

in an insignificant change in their capacity to carry floodwater. These changes would cause minimal 

increases in flood heights and flood limits. These minimal increases would not result in any 

significant adverse impacts or any significant change in flood risks or damage. Only the Selected 

Alternative in Fort Lauderdale is located within mapped 100-year floodplains. However, 

improvements at the Fort Lauderdale Selected Alternative will be made within the existing FEC 

corridor and/or on property already developed above the 100-year floodplain and any impacts to 

flood elevations will be addressed by applying the FDOT’s drainage design standards18 and following 

the SFWMD procedures19 to achieve results that will not increase or significantly change the flood 

elevations and/or limits. If work is found to be necessary below the 100-year flood elevation, 

mitigation of any flood management impacts will be required and undertaken as part of the 

necessary Environmental Resource Permit process, resulting in no significant impact to regulated 

floodplains. 

The Selected Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts to 100-year floodplains. 

Further, any potential impacts will be avoided and/or minimized through best management practices 

and permitting requirements. 

D. Wetlands: Based on the current National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping and SFWMD Land Use 

mapping, there are no jurisdictional wetlands that exist within the FEC corridor. However, based on 

field investigations conducted on July 13, 2012, and review of aerial photography, new wetland 

boundaries were mapped by AAF within the FEC corridor in three locations: 

• Milepost 338.5; East and west edge of right of way on the north side of South Fork Middle 

River 

• Milepost 353.7; West edge of right of way on the north side of the Oleta River

• Milepost 354.3; East edge of right of way between NW 172nd Street and Snake Creek Canal

Each of these newly mapped wetlands within the FEC corridor individually represents less than 1/3 

acre and, in the aggregate, less than 1/2 acre. These fringe mangrove wetlands are along the 

perimeter edge of the FEC corridor and no work is proposed in the immediate vicinity of these 

wetlands. Intrusion into these edge wetlands will be avoided or minimized through project design, 

such as using cross-sections of minimum practicable width to avoid intrusion. Furthermore, best 

management practices would be employed during construction to avoid temporary impacts to the 

wetland systems. Although not anticipated, any wetland impacts that would result from the 

construction of this Selected Alternative would be mitigated pursuant to S. 373.414 F.S. to satisfy all 

mitigation requirements of Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S. and 33 U.S.C. §1344. Such measures may 

include onsite mitigation, offsite mitigation, or the purchase of mitigation credits from mitigation 

banks permitted under S. 373.4136 F.S. to offset any functional loss of wetlands as determined 

through Florida’s Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) (Chap. 62-345 FAC). Any such 

applicable wetlands mitigation requirements would be coordinated during permitting. However, in 

 

18 See State of Florida Department of Transportation Drainage Manual, Chapters 2.2, 3.3, 4.2, and 4.4, and Appendix D.

19 See SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit Information Manual Volume IV.
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

22 42

light of the wetland mitigation required for state and federal permit efforts, the total potential 

wetland impact (less than 0.5 acre) would not be significant. 

The Selected Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts to wetlands. Further, any 

potential impacts will be avoided and/or minimized through best management practices and 

mitigation requirements, if and as applicable. 

E. Noise and Vibration: Noise and vibration impacts of the construction and operation of the Selected 

Alternative were analyzed pursuant to the guidelines of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)20

for train and rail facility operations, along with those of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

as defined for Florida application by the FDOT for traffic noise. Through that analysis, the EA 

establishes that the construction and operation of the Selected Alternative would not be expected 

to result in significant vibration impacts. As for noise, the EA documents that the Project would 

have noise impacts however AAF has committed to mitigation that would reduce both Project and 

existing noise levels. The potential unmitigated noise impacts would primarily be the result of the 

additional train horn noise as trains approach at-grade crossings. AAF has committed to instituting 

the use of stationary wayside horns at the grade crossings where severe, unmitigated impacts are 

identified. The Selected Alternative will dramatically reduce the potential – and existing – noise 

impacts on the surrounding communities. Specifically, more detail is contained in EA section 3.1.7 

that describes how committed noise mitigation would serve to: 

a. Eliminate all severe impacts in Broward County and Miami-Dade County and more than 

99% of all severe impacts in Palm Beach County; 

b. Eliminate at least 99% of the moderate impacts in Broward County and Miami-Dade 

County and more than 98% of the moderate impacts in Palm Beach County; and

c. Improve noise conditions in the region because it would include mitigation that is not 

expected to be instituted with the No Build Alternative (such that there would be a 

greater noise impact to the region as a result of the No Build Alternative). 

As such, with this mitigation, the Selected Alternative would create no material adverse noise impact 

on the surrounding communities. As for the increased noise levels that may be encountered during 

the construction of the Selected Alternative, those would be temporary, occurring only during 

construction periods. Further, the institution of construction noise mitigation measures described in 

the EA for the construction of the Selected Alternative would mitigate even those potential 

temporary noise impacts; as described in more detail in Section 3.1.7.4 of the EA, and as shown in 

Tables 3-1.22 and 3-1.23 of the EA.

The Selected Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts in terms of vibration. Further, 

with the institution of construction noise mitigation measures and the incorporation of stationary 

wayside horns at the grade crossings where severe, unmitigated impacts exist, the Selected 

Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts in terms of noise, and will, instead, reduce 

 

20 See Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006.
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

23 42

existing train-related noise in the FEC corridor. Required noise mitigation is described in the 

Commitments section. 

F. Ecological Systems: Ten terrestrial communities, primarily natural, are located adjacent to the 

Project Area. The Selected Alternative would not impact terrestrial ecological systems because the 

proposed work would only involve the removal of open maintained areas within the existing FEC 

corridor or disturbed urban areas adjacent to the FEC Corridor. Furthermore, where the public lands 

run parallel to the FEC corridor, there is a 10-20 foot maintained dirt road buffer between the inside 

of the property fence and the natural area. 

The Selected Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts to ecological resources.

G. Threatened and Endangered Species: The Selected Alternative travels through a highly urbanized 

area within Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, and impacts are limited to the existing 

right-of-way. As such, minimal effects would be expected on wildlife and habitat. The Project Area 

has been largely developed leaving little habitat capable of supporting protected species. Specific 

habitat requirements for most of the identified listed species preclude their presence within the 

Project Area. Other species that might have historically been present within the vicinity of the 

Project Area are no longer present due to urban development replacing all suitable habitats. For the 

few protected species (primarily birds) that might occur within the Project Area, their presence is 

likely to be transient in nature. No designated critical habitat is located within the Project Area for 

the Selected Alternative. Based on these results, USFWS concurrence was requested in October 

2012. On November 20, 2012, USFWS sent a letter to the FRA to confirm its finding that no adverse 

effect would result from the Selected Alternative. That letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

Further, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission sent a letter to the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection on November 26, 2012 in support of the Project and to 

confirm its finding that no significant adverse impact would result from the Selected Alternative. 

That letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 

The Selected Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts to threatened and endangered 

species.

H. Transportation: The EA analyzed the potential transportation impacts of the Selected Alternative

for rail transportation networks, regional roadway transportation networks, local roadway 

transportation networks and parking. 

1. Rail Transportation: The Selected Alternative will be designed (physically and operationally) to 

have no adverse impact on the existing freight rail transportation system. The provision of a 

dual-track new railroad (in place of the existing mostly single track railroad) has been optimized 

through Berkeley Simulation Software’s RTC modeling software to provide sufficient capacity for 

the on-time-performance of the proposed passenger rail service, as well as the existing and 

future freight demands. The capacity improvements, including the expanded signal 

infrastructure, within the Selected Alternative are designed to provide a high degree of reliability 

for the passenger service and have the benefit of keeping the freight service operating on-time, 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

24 42

taking projected freight growth into consideration. Further, one new dispatch district is planned 

between Miami and West Palm Beach for the unified control of the tracks for both freight and 

passenger services. The needed track construction, improvements and rehabilitation would also 

be performed according to best management practices to have minimal temporary impacts to 

existing freight operations during construction. 

2. Regional Roadway Transportation: The Selected Alternative would have an overall, positive 

impact on the regional roadway network (especially I-95 and Florida’s Turnpike corridors) by 

providing a new transportation alternative that would be easily accessible to residents and 

visitors to Southeast Florida in the CBDs of West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Miami. The I95 and the Florida Turnpike corridors operate as regional commuter corridors analogous to the 

FEC corridor. The average vehicle occupancy rate in Florida is 1.25 passengers per vehicle; 

therefore, for every 5 riders on the proposed passenger rail system, it is anticipated that 4 

vehicles would be removed from the regional roadway network because those riders would 

have otherwise utilized either the I-95 or Florida Turnpike corridor.21

 

3. Local Roadway Transportation: Analysis and evaluation of impacts to local vehicular

transportation was divided into two distinct scenarios: (a) potential impacts along the corridor 

at crossings and crossing closures resulting from the system, and (b) potential impacts from the 

stations. 

a. System: The Selected Alternative (which has been analyzed to include impacts resulting 

from existing freight service, as well as projected freight growth and the proposed 

passenger service) would not have a significant impact on traffic operations at railroad 

crossings in the Project Area. The impact on delay, queuing, and Level of Service (LOS) as 

result of the Selected Alternative is limited to signal cycles immediately following a train 

crossing event and are minimal on a peak-hour basis. The passenger train is proposed to 

clear a typical crossing in 52 seconds. With only one such crossing event during peak hours, 

the impact on traffic operations on adjacent roadways is expected to be minor. Signal and 

circuit upgrades performed as part of the track construction, improvement and 

rehabilitation would occur within the FEC corridor, and would not substantially impact 

traffic on intersecting roadways. There are no permanent road closures contemplated as a 

result of the system portion of the Selected Alternative. There are, however, crossing 

closures anticipated for the station elements of the Selected Alternative that are necessary 

to accommodate the proposed platforms. The contemplated crossing closures would only 

occur at low-volume, local streets and would not impact local circulation significantly as 

there are alternate routes located in close proximity to the proposed closures so as to avoid 

dead-end conditions and result in minimal changes to the existing traffic patterns. Access to 

existing properties would not be affected by the proposed crossing closures.

 

21 Based on a 2007 survey conducted by FDOT District Six in Miami-Dade County, the county-wide average vehicle occupancy rate was 1.25 

passengers per vehicle. Also, data published by US Department of Energy in 2010, shows a national average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.59 

passengers per vehicle for cars - http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw613.html
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

25 42

b. Stations: The traffic that is projected by the Selected Alternative would be minor compared 

to existing traffic and roadway capacities in the Project Area. The crossing closures at two 

local streets in West Palm Beach and NW Second Street in Fort Lauderdale are not 

anticipated to impact local circulation. The availability of alternative routes in close 

proximity to the proposed crossing closures will avoid dead-end conditions and result in 

minimal changes to the existing traffic patterns and access to existing properties will be 

maintained. Further, no significant adverse effects are projected on any roadway segments 

in Miami.22 Therefore, no mitigation is required.23 As for temporary impacts that may be 

caused by construction, the roadway segments that provide direct access to the proposed 

sites for the stations may require access management traffic analysis during the design 

phases.

4. Parking: The Selected Alternative would develop demand for 1,170 new parking spaces (60 

spaces in West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale (total of 120 spaces), and 1,050 in Miami) to 

support the retail at each of the three stations. Handicapped spaces will be provided as per 

local ordinance. AAF does not plan to develop dedicated parking on-site for rail service 

passengers because easily-accessible, long-term parking capacity is available within a close 

radius of each of the stations. Existing parking conditions were inventoried at each of the three 

station locations and categorized as surface or structure or public or private within 0.25 and 

0.50 miles of the station locations. The use of such existing parking facilities is supported by 

each of the affected municipalities (see Exhibit 4). Based upon traffic and ridership projections, 

there would be no conflicts or shortages of parking because the existing parking areas are 

sufficient. The unmet demand associated with the West Palm Beach Station (155 vehicles) 

represents less than 1.5 percent of the total number of spaces located within the 1⁄2 mile buffer 

(12,279). Existing parking facilities would need to be occupied at a rate of 98.5% to make the 

demand unsupportable. The unmet demand associated with the Fort Lauderdale Station (155 

vehicles) represents less than 0.5 percent of the total number of spaces located within the 1⁄2 

mile buffer (14,333). Existing parking facilities would need to be occupied at a rate of 99.5% to 

make the demand unsupportable. The demand associated with the Miami Station (# of spaces)

can easily be supported by the vacant parking available within the 1⁄2 mile radius. The City of 

Miami Parking Authority confirmed that many of the larger surface lots proximate to the station 

 

22 No adverse effects are projected because a roadway is considered “adversely” impacted if the station-related traffic causes the roadway 

change from having acceptable LOS to having unacceptable LOS. None of the roadways considered as part of the Selected Alternative confront 

such changes. A separate analysis applies, however, for determining whether a “significant” impact is realized. An impact is considered 

“significant” if the station-related traffic utilizes 5% or more of the roadway capacity. One of the roadway segments in Miami utilizes such 

capacity, but this is not considered “adverse” for the reasons cited in the first sentence of this footnote.

23 No adverse effects are projected because a roadway is considered “adversely” impacted if the station-related traffic causes the roadway 

change from having acceptable LOS to having unacceptable LOS. None of the roadways considered as part of the Selected Alternative confront 

such changes. A separate analysis applies, however, for determining whether a “significant” impact is realized. An impact is considered 

significant if the station-related traffic utilizes 5% or more of the roadway capacity of an adjacent roadway. One of the roadway segments in 

Miami utilizes such capacity, but this is not considered adverse.
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

26 42

are occupied at a rate of approximately 30% or less, thus leaving adequate capacity to support 

the demand associated with the station.24 

The Selected Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts to rail transportation networks, 

regional roadway transportation networks, local roadway transportation networks or parking. 

I. Demographics and Environmental Justice: A high-level quantitative analysis was conducted 

pursuant to Executive Order 12898, to determine the potential for disproportionately high or 

adverse impacts to sensitive communities.

25 Based on the result of the demographic assessment, 

minority populations subject to protection under Executive Order 12898 are present within the 

Project Area. Although there are Environmental Justice communities of concern present along the 

FEC corridor, the implementation of directional, wayward or crossing mounted horns would 

dramatically reduce the existing footprint of warning horn noise and would minimize the number of 

existing and potential noise impacts in the Project Area. Further, the Selected Alternative would not 

displace any businesses or residences and would not adversely impact the demographics of the 

Project Area. The Selected Alternative would further benefit residents by providing additional 

transportation options to residents and tourists within walking distance of the CBDs in the three 

cities where stations are proposed. 

The Selected Alternative will not result in a disproportionately high or adverse effect on those 

sensitive populations and Environmental Justice communities of concern considered under Executive 

Order 12898 after noise mitigation measures have been implemented, such as directional, wayward 

or crossing mounted horns. FRA has determined that a meaningful number of sensitive communities 

are present within the Study Area, and additional steps must be taken by the Project Sponsor to 

further address the requirements of Executive Order 12898 and U.S. Department of Transportation 

Environmental Justice Order 5610.2(a). See Section 7.0 Commitments. 

J. Barriers to Elderly and Handicapped: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (PL 110-

325) provides for equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities to access public and private 

facilities. The Selected Alternative has been developed to provide expanded mobility opportunities 

for those with disabilities and, during the design phase, federal, state and local provisions related to 

ADA compliance will be followed. Designated ADA compliant parking spaces would be provided to 

ensure the availability of parking and decrease the distance for elderly and disabled passengers to 

travel to the train platform. Further, AAF trains will be single level, fully accessible coaches, with 

level floor boarding from platforms. All station facilities and platforms will have elevator access, and 

individuals with disabilities will not encounter stairs in boarding or departing from trains. Also, 

there will be no stairs or other obstacles to impede movement on board trains. AAF trains will be 

the first-in-the-nation to have the entire train accessible to wheelchair passengers, including access 

to pass between coaches for the entire length of the train.

 

24 An analysis of parking was completed in the area of each of the proposed stations as part of the EA. This analysis identified the presence of 

available parking within 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 mile buffers. The 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 mile thresholds were chosen based on standards identified in the Transportation 

Research Board’s Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. 

25 See Section 3.3.3 of EA 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

27 42

The Selected Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts in terms of barriers to the 

elderly and handicapped populations. It is anticipated that the Selected Alternative will benefit 

elderly and handicapped groups by providing a transportation option that will enhance mobility and 

livability in their communities.

K. Public Health and Safety: The addition of passenger trains to the FEC corridor and the development 

of the corresponding stations will not negatively impact public health or safety. The Selected 

Alternative would result in enhancing public safety with improvements to grade crossing signal 

equipment for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Also, the benefits resulting from decreased 

congestion and the potential for fewer vehicular crashes and fewer air emissions indicate that there 

will be no significant negative impacts on public health and safety. 

The Selected Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts on public health and safety.

L. Cultural Resources: The FRA has undertaken consultation with the Florida State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

related to historic, cultural, archaeological and tribal resources and received concurrence on 

November 6, 2012 with FRA’s finding that the Selected Alternative would have no adverse effect 

conditioned on continued consultation with the SHPO and locally affected parties (the Cities of West 

Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami) through the station design process. That letter is attached 

hereto as Exhibit 3. 

The Selected Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts on any of the historic and/or 

cultural resources found within the Project Area.

M. Section 4(f) and Recreational Resources: Based on the results of the EA analysis, one Section 4(f) 

resource (El Portal Tot Lot – Miami-Dade County) appears to have a potential impact from noise in 

the Selected Alternative. However, based on the committed mitigation measure related to wayside 

horns at grade crossings, the noise impact to El Portal Tot Lot would be eliminated. 

The Selected Alternative would not use properties subject to the requirements of Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966 or have a significant impact on recreational resources. 

N. Construction Impacts: Impacts from construction of the Selected Alternative are considered 

temporary and occur during and immediately following construction. Most construction impacts 

cease once construction activity in a certain location is completed. Although all construction 

impacts cannot be estimated at this time, AAF has committed to follow best practices and employ 

noise reduction measures, provide dust/erosion/sediment controls and further mitigation measures 

including limitations on nighttime activities in residential neighborhoods. Discharges of sediment 

into waterways will be minimized during construction by preparing a Stormwater Pollution 

Prevention Plan and employing best management practices such as the use of silt fences, straw 

bales, and ditch checks to minimize erosion. Erosion control methods will follow all governing 

regulations and permits. Further, AAF will prepare a spill prevention plan for petroleum products 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

28 42

and hazardous materials during construction and will require contractors to properly maintain their 

equipment to avoid spills. In summary, the temporary construction impacts would cease 

immediately after construction activities are completed and would be minimized using best 

management practices and by following all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, regulations 

and ordinances. For example, as referenced in the foregoing section regarding water quality, the 

Selected Alternative will include, at a minimum, on-site water quality treatment and best 

management practices as required by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) 

(Chap. 40A though E, -4, -40,-42, and/or -44) and the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP) via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program.26 

The Selected Alternative will not result in significant permanent and adverse construction impacts.

Further, any potential temporary impacts will be avoided and/or minimized through best 

management practices and mitigation requirements applied pursuant to all applicable federal, state, 

and local statutes, regulations and ordinance, if and as applicable, such that any such temporary 

construction impacts would cease immediately after construction activities are completed. 

O. Potential Secondary and Cumulative Impacts: The Selected Alternative may result in secondary 

impacts such as creating the potential for development and redevelopment outside the 

development directly associated with the stations. This additional development may also create 

impacts such as increased traffic generated from those developments. It is not anticipated that the 

Selected Alternative will have a secondary impact on the availability and capacity of the local 

governments’ ability to provide municipal services (e.g., potable water, sewer, solid waste, police, 

fire, EMS) for the proposed action and the surrounding areas. Since the Project does not have any 

significant adverse effects it will not contribute to cumulative effects in the Project area. 

The Selected Alternative will not result in significant adverse secondary and/or cumulative impacts.

6.0 Comments

The matrix attached (Exhibit 4 – Part 1) sets forth a description of all comments received from citizens 

and elected officials since the EA was released for public circulation and comment on October 31, 2012, 

and through December 3, 2012. Further, the comments received from citizens have been compiled and 

attached (Exhibit 4 – Part 2). In addition, the comments received from elected officials have been 

compiled and attached (Exhibit 4 – Part 3). Finally, the comments received from agencies have been 

compiled and attached (Exhibit 4 – Part 4) and a description thereof appears below. 

In summary, a total of 88 comments were received on the EA during the 30-day public comment period, 

which closed on Monday, December 3, 2012. Of those comments:

• 59 were received from citizens; 

• 29 were received from elected officials;

 

26 See State of Florida Erosion & Sediment Control – Designer & Reviewer Manual, 2007.
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

29 42

• 84 were provided in support of the Project;

• 3 were provided in opposition to the Project; and

• 1 was provided without a position on the Project. 

The following discussion provides summarized descriptions of those comments that raised concerns 

related to the Project or comments related to potential impacts, followed by a response thereto.

Noise

Alicia Banuchi, Hollywood, Florida resident 

Ms. Banuchi stated her opposition to the Project due to the noise resulting from the warning horns at 

grade crossings. 

Robert Kurtz, West Palm Beach, Florida resident

Mr. Kurtz expressed concern as to whether or not he resides in one of the two multifamily buildings in 

Table 3-1.23 categorized as severely impacted. He was trying to determine if the “...train warning horn 

would only be sounded when the train is within 500 feet of the station,” and if so, would train warning 

horns only be sounded “well north” of Okeechobee Boulevard. Finally, Mr. Kurtz asked, “why should 

residents of West Palm Beach have to settle for what sounds like ‘second best’ solutions to the issue of 

train noise?” His understanding is that the best solution to horn noise is for West Palm Beach to be 

designated as an official “Quiet Zone,” which has been done for other sections of the FEC railway. 

Response: In response to the first concern raised by Mr. Kurtz, his building is not one of the severely 

impacted sites, nor was it determined that it would be moderately impacted from noise. In response to 

the request for further clarification regarding the noise analysis, reference is made to Section 3.1.7 of 

the EA, which details the evaluation and analysis of potential noise and vibration impacts from the 

Project. The methodology used in the evaluation and analysis of noise and vibration was derived from 

the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Guidance Manual for Transit Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment, May 2006 (FTA-VA-90-1003-06). Based on this guidance, and as set forth in Section 3.1.7.3 

of the EA, the number of potential unmitigated severely and moderately impacted parcels was 

determined for the No-Build Alternative (Table 1-2) and the additional and overlapping27 impacts for the

Preferred Build Project Alternative (Table 1-3) for each of the three (3) counties.

 

27 Following the FTA noise assessment methodology, both the No-Build and Preferred Build Project Alternatives are compared to the 

existing conditions. Impacts from both alternatives would affect many of the same noise sensitive receptors and overlap. Therefore the 

unmitigated impacts of No Build and the Project cannot be added together. 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

30 42

Table 1-2

Summary of Unmitigated Noise Impact Results

No-Build Alternative

County Number of Severe Impact Parcels Number of Moderate Impact Parcels Residential Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential Mobile Home Institutional Recreational Residential Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential Mobile Home Institutional

Recreational

Miami-Dade 710 492 1 0 0 1,782 998 41 5 0

Broward 2,121 1195 3 0 0 4,862 2,222 6 20 0

Palm Beach 3,935 1,267 0 0 0 5,952 1,168 0 16 1

Source: URS Corporation, 2012

Table 1-3

Summary of Unmitigated Noise Impact Results

Preferred Build Project Alternative

County Number of Severe Impact Parcels Number of Moderate Impact Parcels Residential Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential Mobile Home Institutional Recreational Residential Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential Mobile Home Institutional

Recreational

Miami-Dade 428 299 1 8 0 1,974 1,148 41 44 5

Broward 1,155 673 2 23 1 5,708 2,725 7 124 4

Palm Beach 2,432 895 0 16 1 7,241 1,504 0 84 7

Source: URS Corporation, 2012

To mitigate for these potential impacts, AAF has committed to the use of stationary wayside horns at 

the grade crossings where severe, unmitigated noise impacts exist, thereby reducing the number of 

potential impacts in the Project Area substantially. The stationary horns are sounded at the crossing; 

not from the trains themselves, which significantly reduces the resulting noise impacts, and focuses the 

noise from the horns in the direction of traffic. The following graphic illustrates the smaller area that is 

impacted from the use of stationary wayside horns when compared to horns sounded from the train as 

it is moving. 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

31 42

 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

32 42

Table 1-4 summarizes the benefits received from the use of the committed noise mitigation.

Table 1-4

Summary of Noise Impact Results

Preferred Build Project Alternative with Stationary Grade-Crossing Horns

Counties Number of Severe Impact Parcels Number of Moderate Impact Parcels Residential Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential Mobile Home Institutional Recreational Residential Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential Mobile Home Institutional

Recreational

Miami-Dade 0 0 0 0 0 5 13 0 1 0

Broward 0 0 0 0 0 13 11 0 2 0

Palm Beach 2 2 0 0 0 106 51 0 3 0

Source: URS Corporation, 2012

The committed noise mitigation will improve the ambient noise levels along the FEC corridor because all 

train movements through the corridor (passenger and freight) will use the stationary grade-crossing 

horns and not the warning horn blasts from the train itself over a 0.25-mile long distance that are 

currently in effect. 

In response to the reference to Quiet Zones, stakeholders in the affected communities are considering 

the institution of Quiet Zones (which prohibit horns to be sounded in specified areas), as stated in the 

EA. Specifically, the City of Miami is in the process of applying for a continuous 4.5 mile Quiet Zone 

involving 19 grade crossings and the City of Fort Lauderdale is considering applying for Quiet Zones as 

well. This involves instituting alternate safety measures such as four-quadrant gates and nonmountable median dividers. In addition, supplementary safety measures must be installed and a risk 

analysis must be prepared to demonstrate that safety would not be compromised by eliminating train 

horns in the area receiving Quiet Zone designation. As stated in the EA, AAF will support efforts to 

institute such Quiet Zone measures. It should be noted, however, that while AAF is not opposed to the 

establishment of Quite Zones and understands that those efforts may be pursued by governmental 

authorities or others, the implementation of Quiet Zones has not been proposed as part of the Selected 

Alternative. Instead, the governmental entities or other authorities pursuing these efforts will act as the 

sponsors of such efforts and will be responsible for the application process and the costs associated 

therewith, including the costs of any improvements to be borne in connection therewith. In light of the 

foregoing, the feasibility of these measures has not been determined as part of the Project.

In summary, the substantial reduction of impacts resulting from stationary wayside horns significantly 

reduces noise impacts such that no significant impact is expected. 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

33 42

Sensitive Communities

Alicia Banuchi, from Hollywood, Florida resident

Ms. Banuchi expressed her concern that the Project will have a “...proportionately high adverse severe 

noise impact on the low-income minority populations and businesses in the surrounding communities – 

and not just minority ‘Hispanics’.” Furthermore, she expressed her concern that severe noise impacts 

will have a direct effect on “’non-white’’ racial minorities.”

Response: Section 3.3.3 of the EA details the evaluation and analysis of potential impacts to 

Environmental Justice populations from the Project. Environmental Justice was established in 1994 by 

Executive Order 12898 requiring federal agencies to analyze and address, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects of federal actions on sensitive 

populations, when such analysis is required by NEPA. Criteria outlined in Environmental Justice, 

Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, published by the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) in December 1997, guide the examination of potential environmental justice effects, and 

were applied to identify whether sensitive populations exist within the Project Area. Based on the 

analysis of 2010 US Census and 2010 American Communities Survey data and evaluation criteria 

guidance from the CEQ, it was determined in the EA that certain populations meet the criteria for 

evaluation as Environmental Justice populations and were impacted by additional noise generated by 

the Selected Alternative without the inclusion of mitigation measures, as summarized in Tables 1-5 and 

1-6.

Table 1-5 

Location of Impacts to Non-White Populations

Location of Impacts Total

Number of Census Tracts With Non-White 

Population Greater than 29.7% (established 

Tri-County average) Containing Severe Impact 

Locations

58 (56.9% of 102 

tracts with severe 

impacts)

Total Number of Severe Impact Locations 

within the 58 Affected High-Minority Tracts

3,430 (57.8% of 

total number of 

severe impacts)

 Source: 2012 Noise and Vibration Analysis, 2010 US Census

Table 1-6 

Location of Impacts to Low-Income Populations

Location of Impacts Total

Number of Census Tracts with Low-Income Population 

Greater than 11.5% Containing Sever Impact Locations

80 (78.4%)

Total Number of Severe Impact Locations within the 80 

Affected High-Hispanic Tracts

4,637 (78.1%)

Source: 2006 – 2010 American Community Survey, 5 year Estimate, 2012 Noise and Vibration Analysis
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

34 42

However, as stated previously in this FONSI and in Table 1-4, the committed use of stationary wayside 

horns at the grade crossings where severe, unmitigated noise impacts exist dramatically reduces severe 

and moderate noise impacts (i.e., eliminating all severe impacts in Broward County and Miami-Dade 

County, more than 99% of all severe impacts in Palm Beach County, at least 99% of the moderate 

impacts in Broward County and Miami-Dade County and more than 98% of the moderate impacts in 

Palm Beach County). This substantial reduction of impacts also significantly reduces impacts to sensitive 

populations such that no significant impact remains. 

Emergency Response and Emergency Facilities

Sue Gunzburger, Broward County Commissioner – District 6, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 

Ms. Gunzburger expressed concern over her constituents’ abilities to access emergency medical care 

due to the increase in train traffic resulting from the addition of up to 16 to 19 roundtrip passenger rail 

trains per day. She stated, “with only at-grade crossings throughout Southeast Broward County, the 

frequency of those crossings being closed to vehicles at peak hours for train traffic will surely delay 

timely access to trauma and emergency hospital care.”

Response: Sections 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.1.2 detail the evaluation and analysis of potential impacts to traffic 

and surface transportation from the Project. Table 1-7 summarizes the estimated delays caused by 

current activities (2006), opening year (2015) and future year (2025) operational conditions. To assess 

the impact of the proposed passenger service on the existing crossings, first the delay estimates at a 

typical crossing were developed, and then two representative crossings were analyzed in detail for each 

affected county, for a total of six investigated crossings. These crossing were selected at major arterial 

roadways that have significant traffic volumes compared to other roadways with railroad crossings. 

Adjacent signalized intersections within 500 feet from the crossing were also included in the analysis to 

study the impact of the train crossing event on intersection traffic operations. The analyzed crossings 

represent the worst-case scenario in terms of traffic delay and LOS. 

For Broward County, the EA analyzed the crossings at Hillsboro Blvd. and Broward Blvd. Based on the 

EA’s analysis of these high-traffic crossings for the opening year of 2015 and the build out year of 2035 – 

with and without the train service traffic operations in the Project Area – it was determined that the 

traffic operations and LOS at adjacent intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at similar LOS 

with the introduction of the passenger rail service compared to LOS with already existing freight service 

such that the additional impact from the passenger rail service is minimal. Specifically, both the 

crossings analyzed in Broward County are expected to operate at LOS E or better in the build-out year of 

2035. There would be no significant impact to traffic operations at these locations as a result of the 

Selected Alternative. Further, it is expected that because the impacts are minimal at these major 

arterial crossings (with higher traffic volumes) then the impact would be minimal at minor roadway 

crossings as well. 

The impacts are minimal in Broward County and the other affected counties for the following reasons, 

among others:
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

35 42

o Shorter Train Length: AAF’s trainsets will be shorter than the freight trains that 

currently operate in the corridor. Those freight trains average 8,837 feet in length. By 

contrast, AAF’s trains will be less than 1,000 feet long – averaging from 725 to 900 feet 

in length.

o Quicker Clearance of Crossings: The freight trains can take five minutes to clear a 

crossing (averaging from 237 seconds to 308 depending on the County). AAF’s trains 

will clear crossings in 52 seconds. This includes the time to activate and close the gate, 

the train passing and the gates reopening.

Further, as stated in the EA, traffic signals in the area have pre-emption capabilities and standard signal 

coordination in place allowing traffic to clear out and/or hold vehicles until the train clears. The signal 

operation at adjacent intersections can be synchronized so the traffic signal for the parallel roadways 

will remain green, and the roadway with a railroad gate in the lowered position will be red, to avoid 

blocking intersections and reduce the number of vehicles in the line of traffic at the crossing. This 

coordination and preemption would prevent vehicles – including emergency vehicles – from being 

trapped between the crossing location and the intersection. No significant impact is expected to 

emergency response or access related to traffic.
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

36 42

Table 1-7 

FEC Railroad Crossing Delay Estimates
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

37 42

Use of Alternate Fuels

Alexander Martinez, Miramar, Florida resident

Mr. Martinez expressed interest in how the trains will be “powered,” and if the use of “less impactful” 

alternative energy sources will be used. 

Response: Diesel fuel is required to propel the train locomotives. Section 3.3.10 details the evaluation 

and analysis of potential impacts from energy resources for the Project. Tier IV locomotives would be 

used that would emit less pollution than older locomotives. Use of electricity was not considered viable 

for the Project due to the additional cost of overhead catenary systems and supplemental electrical substations, as well as the potential for substantial adverse aesthetic impacts especially in historic areas. 

Table 1-8 summarizes the benefits from the Project as it relates to energy consumption and savings. As 

such, no significant impact is anticipated. 

Table 1-8 

Energy Consumption and Savings

Energy 

Resource Consumption Savings Joules1/unit KJoules2

Gasoline 2,162,330.5 

gallons/year3 131,760,000.00 285,000,000,000

Diesel 1,287,720.0 

gallons/year4 136,629,732.60 176,000,000,000

Electricity 81,600,000 

Kwh/year5 3,600,000.00 294,000,000,000

Total 

Difference (185,000,000,000)

Examples of 185,000,000,000 KJoules

Gallons of gasoline annually 1,404,608.00

Gallons of diesel annually 1,354,024.46

Kwh annually 51,388,888.89

1

 Joules = kg*m2/s2 and is used as the common measure of “work” 2

 KJoules = Kilojoules or 1,000 Joules (rounded)

3

 Based on the average of 2,001,327.6 and 2,323,333.5 stated above 4

 Based on 147 gallons per one way trip X 24 daily one way trips = 3,528 gallons/day

 3,528 gallons/day x 365 day = 1,287,720.0 gallons/year

5

 Based on 16 Kilowatt hours (Kwh)/sq ft /month x 12 months = 192 Kwh/sq ft/year

 192 Kwh/sq ft/year x 425,000 sq ft = 81,600,000 Kwh/year
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

38 42

Transportation Planning

Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) 

TCRPC stated its support of the Project citing improvements to regional mobility, reduction of traffic 

congestion, improvement to regional air quality and use of alternative modes of transportation.

South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) 

SFRTA endorses the Project but makes the following comments:

• The EA does not encompass the full scope of AAF’s planned passenger network.

• The EA does not analyze the impact of AAF’s proposed operations on the existing Tri-Rail 

Commuter Rail service or AMTRAK’s intercity service, or assess the amplified benefits of 

linking AAF’s and Tri-Rail and/or AMTRAK’s operations.

• The EA does not provide support for assertions that future freight traffic on AAF’s 

corridor will not exceed 2006 volumes.

Response: With regard to the first comment, it should be noted that the EA covers the project as 

proposed by the AAF to the FRA (see additional discussion in section 1.0 of this FONSI) addressing West 

Palm Beach to Miami, Florida, which AAF intends to pursue as an independent project. With regard to 

the second comment, commuter rail is not part of the No Build Alternative and is not part of the 

Selected Alternative. The possibility of commuter rail within the FEC corridor has been studied for at 

least 10 years. Those studies have not yet established a definite preferred alternative or 

approach. Moreover, no funding plan exists for such commuter service. Given the number of issues still 

in flux regarding the possibility of commuter rail within the FEC corridor, an agreement is not in place 

between FDOT, SFRTA and AAF for that service. However, as AAF has stated in the EA, while there are 

no current plans for shared use of the stations for commuter rail service, the option for such service will 

continue to exist even after the Project becomes operational because the stations will be developed in a 

manner that will not preclude future commuter rail service on the FEC corridor, by SFRTA, FDOT or 

others. Further, AAF representatives have publically and consistently stated their support for commuter 

rail over the last 10 years.28 

The investment grade ridership study completed by AAF assumes a fare structure that is multiple times 

the current fare structure published by SFRTA. This accounts not only for the different type of service 

that will be provided by AAF (e.g. multiple class seating, free Wi-Fi, meal service, etc.), but also allows 

AAF to target the non-commuter market that exists in the South Florida region. With intercity type of

 

28 See, e.g., Proposed Tri-Rail service would take passengers into hearts of coastal cities from Jupiter to Miami, The Palm Beach Post (Nov. 24, 

2012), available at http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local/proposed-tri-rail-service-would-take-passengers-in/nTD2S/. See, also, 

Tri-rail Ponders Fec Line Purchase, The Sun Sentinel (October 5, 2002), available at http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2002-10-

05/news/0210050099_1_tri-rail-fec-commuter-trains. 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

39 42

train sets, service times (one-hour headways instead of twenty minute headways in the case of Tri-Rail 

during peak hours), and service attributes, AAF will serve different market segments than Tri-Rail, 

therefore allowing both to coexist in the region. FRA agrees that continued coordination by AAF with 

FDOT and SFRTA is appropriate and has been included as one of the mitigation commitments identified 

in section 7. 

Finally, with regard to the references to the 2006 level of frequency, it should be noted that those 

references are made to speak to the changing composition of rail freight from bulk movements to 

containerization. Throughout the EA, however, it indicates that the analysis has been conducted based 

on the presumption that FECR will maintain operations as a freight provider within the FEC corridor with 

projected and planned annual growth of 5% to 7% until 2016 and 3% thereafter. As such, future freight 

traffic has been considered and evaluated within the EA as part of the No-Build Alternative, which has 

been compared to the Selected Alternative in accordance with NEPA and FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999)

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) 

SFWMD issued a statement of “No Comment.” 

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) – Central Environmental Management Office (CEMO) 

FDOT CEMO recommended coordination with the appropriate FDOT District Permit Offices for activities 

within and adjacent to FDOT rights-of-way and projects. Coordination with the appropriate FDOT District 

Traffic Operations Offices was also recommended if lane closures and/or channelization are necessary. 

Response: AAF is committed to continued and on-going coordination with FDOT and FDOT Districts.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) – Region IV

The Federal Transit Administration – Region IV requested coordination between AAF and SFRTA 

regarding; Tri-Rail and operational service issues along portions of the corridor; Tri-Rail and attempts to 

ensure that AAF service does not compete and/or degrade existing Tri-Rail service within the Miami 

Urban Zone Area (UZA); and station area plans. FTA Region IV cited concerns relating to bus routes at 

station locations, and use of public loan guarantees for the Project. 

FTA Region IV requests that the three local MPOs and SFRTA have the opportunity to review impacts 

from station locations, potential transit oriented development, and parking assessments. Additionally, 

FTA Region IV commented on the number of provided parking spaces, and whether or not AAF will assist 

in station area planning. 

Response: With regard to the comments from the FTA Region IV regarding coordination between AAF 

and SFRTA, FRA agrees that this is a sound recommendation and has included this requirement in the 

mitigation commitments section (Section 7). AAF has stated publically that it supports discussion and 

dialogue with all interested parties regarding commuter rail and continued consultation by the parties as 

the Project is advanced would be appropriate. While the Project will not provide public transit service, 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

40 42

the option for SFRTA to cooperate with FECR and FECI to develop commuter rail service on the FEC line 

will remain available after implementation of the Project. 

With regard to the FTA Region IV’s financing comments, a Project cost estimate has been included in 

section 3.1 and discussion of a potential RRIF loan in section 1.0. The decision on whether to apply for a 

RRIF loan rests with AAF and the decision as to whether to approve any such request if made rests with 

the FRA. 

With regard to parking, the EA analysis was based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 

parking estimation guide, Parking Generation, 4th Edition. As per the ITE guidance, the spaces available 

and provided are considered adequate.

7.0 Commitments

Demographics and Environmental Justice

FRA concludes that the EA presents a high-level quantitative analysis for demographics and 

Environmental Justice. Further analysis will need to be completed by the Project Sponsor prior to 

construction to fully comply with the requirements of Executive Order 12898 and U.S. Department of 

Transportation Environmental Justice Order 5601.2(a) due to the meaningfully greater number of 

Environmental Justice communities present within the Project Area. FRA will review and accept a 

completed Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment conducted and submitted by the 

Project Sponsor. 

Traffic Design

FRA concludes that additional analyses of the intersections adjacent to the three station locations will 

need to be completed prior to construction by the Project Sponsor during the design phase to address 

any specific traffic control requirements that may be present. FRA will review and accept completed 

traffic design analyses conducted and submitted by the Project Sponsor. 

Noise

FRA finds that noise mitigation is required to address potential train horn noise impacts. AAF has 

committed to mitigating these impacts with the installation of stationary wayside horns at the grade 

crossings where severe, unmitigated impacts exist (EA section 3.1.7.4). AAF will also cooperate with 

local jurisdictions should they seek to establish quiet zones. Unless AAF can show that noise associated 

with certain crossings will not cause severe impacts, FRA requires AAF to install wayside horns or 

cooperate to establish quiet zones for all crossings in the Project area. 

Coordination

FRA finds that concerns about coordination with commuter rail planning calls for continued interaction 

with regional transportation agencies. FRA requires that AAF coordinate directly with FDOT and SFRTA 

on the development of the Project in relationship to transit services provided by FDOT and SFRTA, with 

an objective of developing a plan for integrated passenger rail services in the south Florida region. 
All Aboard Florida –West Palm Beach to Miami January 2013

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DOT

41 42

Water Quality

Temporary impacts resulting from construction of all alternatives considered would cease when 

construction was completed and would be minimized by best management practices as required by the 

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) (Chap. 40A through E, -4,-40,-42, and/or -44). 

SFWMD water quality criteria require on-site retention of the first inch of stormwater runoff from the 

entire site area or 2.5 times the percentage of impervious area, whichever is greater. In South Florida, 

the best management practices used to accommodate for these retention criteria and also meet 

permitting requirements are:

• Surface infiltration through swales or ditches; 

• Installation of underground French drain systems to drain water into the superficial aquifer or 

water table; 

• Deep injection wells to drain water via gravity or pumping to the deeper G-III aquifer (only 

permissible outside of well-field protection areas and east of the salt-water intrusion line); 

and/or; 

• Retention ponds

Potential water quality impacts resulting from erosion and sedimentation will be controlled in 

accordance with best management practices. SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) 

requirements protect the discharge water quality, which in turn avoids impact. The proposed Project 

would comply with all local ordinances for protection of the well-fields, including those noted above. 

During the design phase of the Project, further coordination with SFWMD will occur to ensure the ERP 

requirements include best management practices during construction to preserve (or enhance) the 

water quality within surface waters. 

Wetlands

Best management practices would be employed during construction to avoid temporary impacts to the 

wetland systems. 

Rail Transportation

Track construction, improvements and rehabilitation needed to implement the Preferred Build System 

Alternative would be performed according to best management practices to have minimal temporary 

impacts to existing freight operations during construction. 

Hazardous Materials Use, Storage, and Transportation

Usage and storage of hazardous materials at the Ft. Lauderdale Vehicle Maintenance Facility location 

will be handled according to accepted industry best management practices. 

Construction Impacts

Discharge of sedimentation into waterways will be minimized during construction. Best management 

practices, such as silt fence, straw bales, and ditch checks, will be used to minimize soil erosion,